Has the Supreme Court Ruling that the term woman means an adult human female (for the purposes of the Equality Act) ended the gender wars?
Not yet. Fury has been unleashed. The protests over the Easter weekend against the legal ruling have been hard to watch and the placards unpleasant to read. The hate-fuelled anger from a number of trans-activists towards women and non-believers is explicit for all to see. The intention to intimidate is clear.
This backlash from the genderists is not surprising. For two decades an irrational ideology that undermines elementary science, bulldozes through language, truth, and logic, and tramples over the rights of non-believers has been allowed increasingly to hold sway across our institutions and shared public life. Adherents of the ideology have been led to believe that they will get their way. Conjure up a new gender identity – it duly appears in worksheets for schoolchildren. Dream up a new demand for workplaces – next year you will see it in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index.
Besides, gender ideology was supposed to be well bulwarked against set-backs. Violent threats were not meant to be needed, because more subtle ones, even nicely sugar-coated, were in place.
Firstly, we are all familiar with the notion of ‘transphobia’. The threat of disciplinary action at work, a ‘non-crime hate incident’ recorded against your name by the police, the fear of being called a transphobe on social media: these were all supposed to silence the would-be questioners about gender ideology.
But even this wasn’t the main defence against the exposure of the rotten heart of gender ideology. Candy-coated compliance was expected to suffice, the velvet glove covering the iron fist was not meant to come off. We were all supposed to ‘Be Kind’.
Following the Supreme Court judgment last week, Andrew Walton, Lloyds’s Chief Corporate Affairs Director, told LGBT staff: “Please know that we cherish and celebrate you.” Cherish and celebrate work colleagues? That sounds unrealistic and exhausting. On display here is the language of ‘allyship’.
Last week, Justine Roberts, the founder of Mumsnet, revealed that her business had been blacklisted by Barclays because it hosts debate on gender ideology and in the past has called for the definition of ‘a woman’ to be clarified in equality legislation. Queried about this by the BBC, Barclays declined to comment. In 2018 Barclays was named one of Stonewall’s Top Global Employers for the sixth consecutive year. A Barclays video about ‘allyship’ is therefore a perfect showcase of this approach.
In the Barclays allyship video, Sionice (she/her) explains the rules – listen to catch the tone.
Sionice explains about transgenderism: “Where people go wrong they think they need to understand it. You don’t!” (Subtext – don’t ask questions.)
On allyship: “To be a better ally there are three things you need to do. You need to Wise up, Stand up, and Show up.”
On wising up: “Wising up is about educating yourself and not expecting the LGBTQ+ community to educate you.”
On standing up: “Standing up is about standing up for the community as if you’re part of the community.”
On showing up: “Showing up is about being visible in your allyship. It’s about saying ‘I’m an ally’, adding your pronouns to your email signatures and social media sites. And observing days like Trans Day of Remembrance.”
Overall: “You don’t need to be an expert. But by helping yourself and educating yourself you’re helping others. You are saying ‘I am an ally and I think about diversity and inclusion’. And that is the first step to brilliant allyship.”
Stonewall also provides lessons in allyship. It’s Workplace Equality Index has multiple questions asking employers for evidence of it. The idea for ‘visible signals’ has spawned a plethora of badge schemes, rainbow staircases, rainbow crossings, rainbow lanyards, and rainbow cupcakes…
The instruction to have ‘visible signals’ is probably what led Barclays to promote transgenderism to users of its cashpoints.
Allyship was supposed to work. We could show up, cherish each other and celebrate bringing our whole selves to work. We could use whichever loo we want and relegate the dignity and privacy of the two sexes to the history books. We would note the irreversible damage done to vulnerable young people by experimental gender medicine as an acceptable side product of our self-actualisation.
Well, allyship didn’t work. When we wised up we came back to the fact that sex is real and matters. When we stood up we spotted other people starting to have questions too. When we showed up we decided to head to a Let Women Speak meeting in Hyde Park to hear from Posie Parker.
The accusations of transphobia ultimately didn’t work either. Live not by lies!
So now too, the violent threats won’t work. Sex matters and so does the truth. Gender ideology is over – but we need to keep the receipts, expose the history and learn the lessons. “By educating yourself you are helping others” – thanks for the tip, Barclays.
Caroline Ffiske is a Director of Conservatives for Women. Find her on X.
Stop Press: The Met Police is reviewing death threats to women displayed by trans rights activists at a protest. The Telegraph has more.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I didnt realise the degree of insanity amongst the population until gender ideology arrived.
It’s appeared at the same time that a much higher proportion of the population has been to “university” and thus were exposed to the unopposed deranged Leftwaffe “professors” and their running dogs.
Meanwhile Sir Two-Tier owns up to needing a Supreme Court Beak to tell him what most of us outside the Westminster bubble worked out for ourselves in nursery-school.
The present government seems to prove Machiavelli correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU0ydXfieGA
Is he still waiting for the Supreme Court to tell him what a Nonce is?
One of the all too predictable consequences of the ruling will be the widespread adoption of gender neutral toilets & changing rooms. You can discriminate if you don’t discriminate. Of course the downside is that whilst at present it’s rare for a woman to encounter a bloke in the loo it will now become common.
All the grim dealing with lifting/lowering toilet seats. Blokes peeing all over the seat & generally making a mess.
No more ‘safe space’ in pubs or nightclubs where women can get away from nuisance blokes.
A campaign needs to be waged to keep single sex loos & not let the tail wag the dog .
Except there are men on here who maintain having single sex ( presumably they’re referring to men-only loos too ) toilets is a privilege, not a right. I’m not quite clear if having disabled toilets for the wheelchair users to access is also supposed to be somehow a ‘privilege’ for them…..I think the general point they’re making is that we’re whinging about being ‘oppressed’ if we want to keep our private spaces and sports single-sex.
At our local theatre the loos became gender neutral 2 years ago. The net result is far fewer loos & more queuing for everyone. Where there were 10 urinals there are now 5 cubicles. What’s more, people take at least 2x as long in a cubicle as they did stood at a urinal.
Act 2 being interrupted by people drifting back late to their seats, another unintended consequence of trans nutter to accommodate virtually no one.
The upside is no more rent boys using the men’s toiled as business parlour and no more sexual or other assaults by cocained-overfilled gays looking for a quick romp. And no more Wetherspoon guys telling customers who complain about this, like, glases of mine worth about £170 just got smashed and I barely escaped a seriously mauling as two guys who were both taller and heavier than claimed to be dead-set to have a go at me, that safety on their premises is really none of their business. I’m pretty sure it would immediately become very much their business if one of these bullies suffered as much as a scratch of the hand. That’s the problem here: They may do everything. And in case of any blacklash, security to the rescue!
What do mean by “a right”?
Given that ‘sex’ is a category on the list of ‘protected characteristics’ it is unlawful to change existing single-sex toilets into ‘gender neutral’ facilities or not provide such facilities at all. And I’m afraid having a ‘gender recognition certificate’ does not mean a man can magically morph into the opposite sex in order to circumvent the law. This is why your PM and his colleagues had such difficulty defining what a woman is, because as long as women can have penises they can access our private spaces and intrude in female sports, ergo effectively erasing ‘woman’ as a protected sex category. Men appear to be left unscathed though, on the whole;
”From 1 October 2024, when working on the design of a workplace or public building in England that requires Building Regulations approval, you will now be obligated to provide separate gendered toilets for men and women.
Gender neutral, universal toilets (Superloos) can still be provided, but only in addition to single-sex provision and where space allows. And all toilets will need clear signage to meet the regulations.
Part T– also referred to as Approved Document T – is a new requirement of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, which states:
Toilet accommodation in buildings other than residential must consist of:
Single-sex toilet refers to toilet facilities which are:
https://www.materialsource.co.uk/working-on-a-new-workplace-build-single-sex-toilets-may-soon-be-required/
It would appear that the majority possess common sense and are in agreement that toilets should be single-sex, for obvious reasons that shouldn’t need spelling out, based on 17,000 respondents here;
”The government’s decision is grounded in feedback from the consultation, where 81% of respondents supported separate single-sex toilet facilities, and 82% agreed with the provision of universal toilets where space allows. The government argues that gender-neutral facilities have led to longer queues, decreased choice, and reduced privacy and dignity.”
https://www.thelawyerportal.com/blog/understanding-the-new-single-sex-toilet-law-in-england/
You can’t even escape propaganda in single-sex loos. In a pub Gents last week, plastic mats in the urinals had an NHS logo and “Blood in your pee? See your GP.”
Not in schools they can’t. Scottish Schools must provide single sex facilities as opposed to gender neutral toilets. Some great news coming out of Scotland tonight.
Well the collective public pissing ( because that totally convinces us you’re a woman! ) didn’t get the desired effect, so now they’re moving on to getting their moobs out for a ‘topless march’ in London. Toxic narcissism at it’s finest;
https://x.com/StandingforXX/status/1914631048580702578
Agreed. Heavy reliance on the ‘transmaidens’ for this one, methinks;
”I would be surprised if they can muster 1,000 men with moobs.
My impression is that the majority of protestors are unmodified violent misogynist males.
Perhaps they are relying on handmaidens to..errr…swell the numbers?”
How many of these people openly threatening women and especially JK Rowling with violence have been arrested and hopefully sentenced to a minimum of 3 years, without visits etc, just like the lady who tweeted?
Or are the Police waiting until these men carry out their threats and injure or kill a woman before they act? will lessons be learned then you think? Where is Sir Kier on this and the Solicitor general? no words, nothing! obviously they think violence against women and the threats to JK Rowlings life are ok.
Ironic given that Westminster must have the highest level of CCTV and security in the Country and yet they cannot find the people who held up the signs and trashed the statues.
These buffoons do not speak even for the propensity of the men who just want the freedom to live as best and respectably as they can, without fear or unreasonable prejudice, as if they are women. They are realists.
Many gay people resent their multi decade long hard fight being usurped, and tarnished, by an essentially very differently argued campaign. Gay people don’t really ask for other’s belief of anything, but just demand legal equality.
Everyone, but the buffoons, wants them to pack it in, let it drop. Finish with this nonsense.
So, let me get this right:
1.) Somebody saying “I don’t think a man can change to a woman.” – that’s hate speech.
2.) A demonstration with a placard calling for the murder of women that possess the above opinion – that’s not hate speech.
Did I get it right?
They keep talking about the LGBTQ+ “community”. It’s no “community” when it’s very clear that the Ls and the Ts don’t like each other.
Slightly off topic but vaguely related, my local council-owned cinema just sent me their weekly listings email. It went way over budget and it’s rather nice, and we can walk to it, so we try to support it. I noticed they have a new initiative showcasing films off the beaten track. Ah, that sounds interesting I thought. The first one they’ve chosen is about “queers”. I never used to care what films were about as long as they were interestingly made, but these days I have learned to avoid most of them as they are just another unsubtle preaching session.
I have no intention of “Wising up”, “Standing up”, or “Showing up”. Nor will I support businesses that subscribe to this violent ideology.
I am Spartacus!
After the Supreme Court judgment that a woman is an adult female it must follow that a man is an adult male. However the gender ideology battle goes on….
Firstly, appearance. For example, if a trans ‘man’ ( a biological woman), dressed in masculine clothes enters the ladies toilet now she would be set on by other biological women demanding she leave and they would have a case against her. Now this is unlikely as the trans ‘woman’ would probably be fine in the men’s loo and carry on going there. But it follows from the court ruling.
Many trans ‘women’ who have lived quietly and successfully as female ( with or without surgeries etc) will continue to use the ladies loos undetected but what if, either by his appearance or behaviour he creates suspicion what kind of reaction is he going to get from women in there? Those aggressive types who are protesting with banners saying they will carry on “pissing where they like” are relying on women not making a fuss. I don’t think I want to take on some bloke in a dress with a five o’clock shadow.
Secondly, pronouns. After the ruling does it follow that only the correct pronoun that corresponds to the biological sex be used? Sometimes it’s hard to tell a trans person, other times it’s obvious….. The police got into a right muddle called the trans rapist “she”…… are they going to stop this now ? Or will “ misgendering ” still be a hate crime as transsexuals must be protected? The whole thing is such a twisted mess it’s going to drag on forever. Any answers?
I saw one Labour MP complaining that one of her constituents, a trans woman since a young age (biological man) had been using the ladies’ toilets for decades but under the new ruling, would now have to use men’s toilets for the first time in 50 years. I’ll admit that this kind of issue hadn’t quite occurred to me but like you I would argue, if someone has lived successfully as a woman for 50 years then they are probably very genuine and will continue to be able to use the ladies’ loos undetected. Most women I think (whether rightly or wrongly) wouldn’t make a fuss about someone who overall appears to be female quietly and unobtrusively using the toilet even if they were unsure of their biological sex.
Of course it is exactly this kind of person (i.e. the “real” and genuine trans people, who I do believe exist) that is being harmed by the increasingly rabid demands of the modern trans lobby, but never mind.